What is the remedy for this?

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:31 pm

Problem on an adjoiner lot...

A triangular hillside lot, about 0.2 acre with house.

I don't know if the house existed in 1949 and they wanted to fix an encroachment or they wanted to build over the line, doesn't really matter.

A Deed is recorded in 1949 transferring some land to the triangular lot to make it a little bigger. House is still there occupying the original lot plus into the transferred portion.

The grantee sold the property in 1957 BUT apparently forgot about the transferred parcel. The description only describes the original lot. OOPS.

It has transferred several times like this. The AP map shows the larger lot (triangular lot plus the transferred piece). I would think the taxes have been paid by the owners up to this time. The neighbor is a 1987 Parcel Map which shows the transferred parcel taken out of it so no claim there.

If the owner wants to fix this, how?

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:58 pm

I don't know if the house existed in 1949 ..

Tax assessors in LA County gives structure dates, but like you said, it doesn't matter

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:53 am

I don't think a corrective description deed could be filed, or would be insurable. Perhaps the orig owner is still alive, or had only one decedent? Otherwise it may require an expensive quiet title action.

Please update when you decide on a course of action.

D Ryan · Post by **D Ryan** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:56 am

Dave-

I'd recommend an informal meeting with a savvy senior Planner who will understand the issue and propose to execute a deed using the 1949 description again explaining the simple lapse (probably an attorney) in failing to include it in subsequent conveyances. This deed should contain an explanation of its purpose. Then propose a Notice of Merger/Certificate of Compliance (or whatever they use in your County) that includes both descriptions, this document signed by the owners and the County blessing it. Or the parties can do the deed unilaterally (containing a notation of its purpose) without involving the County, but this runs the risk of being viewed as a subdivision violation. Seems simple enough to me, but other jurisdictions may have a different opinion.

Dave Ryan,
Humboldt County

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 9:53 am

Sounds like the title co dropped the ball, not the owner.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:34 pm

Dave, thanks for your comments. Fortunately this is one boundary line away and doesn't have a direct impact on the boundary I am working on. It is an incorporated City in the Bay Area.

The transfer parcel was granted to Upham in 1949. Upham granted his parcel (without the transfer parcel) via quitclaim deed to Boyce in 1957. The next instrument after the Q/C is the Deed of Trust from Boyce. The whole thing looks amateurish. I don't know if a title company was involved.

I guess no one has noticed in the succeeding decades :-).

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:43 am

This is a very good reason to always describe the resultant parcel and not just the area of transfer.

Go to court do not pass go do not collect $200 go directly to court